Remove ads

Springtime of Nations II: A European Republic Quest

Reader mode
There seems to be a broad consensus to have the Spanish and Italian navy threaten the Dalmatian coast, but I have some concerns. Aside from the possibility this doesn't actually cause transfers of soldiers and potentially increased risk for allied naval vessels, I fear that what gains it might bring could be temporary. If the Austrians transfer troops in a panic, but then realize that no attack is coming, and potentially realize how unworkable the terrain is for amphibious attacks, they might transfer them back. That is to say, the gains we get by transferring off Austrians troops may only last for a season. In which case it's best to try to use this card when we're making a more high stakes move against Austria, at Vienna or Klagenfurt, rather than Prague.
 
Lvov (Lviv today) is considered part of Poland at this point in the quest. It was originally part of Austrian Galicia-Lodomeria, then annexed into Russian Congress Poland during the 1860s.
 
Aedan777 said:
There seems to be a broad consensus to have the Spanish and Italian navy threaten the Dalmatian coast, but I have some concerns. Aside from the possibility this doesn't actually cause transfers of soldiers and potentially increased risk for allied naval vessels, I fear that what gains it might bring could be temporary. If the Austrians transfer troops in a panic, but then realize that no attack is coming, and potentially realize how unworkable the terrain is for amphibious attacks, they might transfer them back. That is to say, the gains we get by transferring off Austrians troops may only last for a season. In which case it's best to try to use this card when we're making a more high stakes move against Austria, at Vienna or Klagenfurt, rather than Prague.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So you'd prefer to support the Prague offensive by having the Italians keep the pressure on? I don't think we can take the city without at least one supporting option.
 
[] Plan: Case Gold Guillotine
-[] [SWEDEN] Strengthen defensive positions in Denmark.
-[] [POLAND] Initiate an offensive toward Konigsberg (Gold).
-[] [REBELS] Have the volunteers continue operating as irregular partisans.
-[] [AUSTRIA] Initiate an offensive toward Prague (Gold).
-[] [ITALY] Ask the Allies to put pressure on the League.
-[] [BALTIC] Deploy the Allied fleet to contest the eastern Baltic Sea.
-[] [MED] Ask the Allies to threaten the Dalmatian coast.
Changing to defensive position in Sweden, becaues we'll probably need an army there to garrison there anyway. We might as well just sit then and watch for any opportunities. With that change I have changed my Polish target to Koningsberg and my Baltic target to the east Baltic, to try and capture/destroy the remaining IL fleet, or force it up north.
 
[] Operation Hamstring
-[] [SWEDEN] Attempt to secure a separate peace with Scandinavia.
-[] [POLAND] Initiate an offensive toward Warsaw (Green).
-[] [REBELS] Have the volunteers continue operating as irregular partisans.
-[] [AUSTRIA] Initiate an offensive toward Prague (Gold).
-[] [ITALY] Ask the Allies to put pressure on the League.
-[] [BALTIC] Order the Allied fleet to interdict the Scandinavian coast.
-[] [MED] Ask the Allies to maintain the situation in the Mediterranean.

Alright, here's the final version of my plan. @Aedan777's argument that the Danubian coast was a card we can only play once is a convincing one, and I want to save it for an attempt to break through the Alps next turn.

The goal, as before, is to cripple the League by destroying even more of their logistical capacity in Poland, and keep Austria from being able to supply their army by taking Prague's industry.
 
Last edited:
Here is the compiled losses suffered between December and February:
In December:

We have:

17 german,6 Italian, and 1 Spanish armies of 9.6M total.

8.3M German 3.1M Italian and 0.8M Spanish reserves of 12.2M total.

21.8M manpower.

They have:

16 Russian, 1.5 Scandinavian 7 Austrian of around 10M total.

2.7M Austrian and 13.48M Russian reserves of 16.18M total.

26.18M manpower.

In February:

We have:

25 German 6 Italian and 2 Spanish armies of around 13.2M total.

4.3M German, 3.09M Italian, 0.38M Spanish reserves of 7.77M total.

20.97M manpower.

They have:

25 Russian 10 Austrian and 1 Scandinavian armies of around 14.4M total.

7.69M Russian, 0.3M Austrian reserves of 7.99M total.

22.39M manpower.

So, casualties wise we've taken 803k and they've taken 3.79M.

In December we have 2 BB, 31 CA, 20 second class C, 17 third class C, 16 CB, 2 K, 126 TB, 9 M.

Now we have 2 BB, 23 CA, 15 second class C, 17 third class C, 13 CB, 2 K, 126TB, 9 M

In December they have 4 BB, 8 CA, 7 second class C, 7 third class C, 40 CB, 14 K, 128 TB, 3 M.

Now they have 2 BB, 6 CA, 6 second class C, 6 third class C, 32 CB, 9 K, 91 TB, 3 M.
 
Aedan777 said:
[] Plan Divide and Conquer
-[] [SWEDEN] Attempt to secure a separate peace with Scandinavia.
-[] [POLAND] Initiate an offensive toward Lvov (Red).
-[] [REBELS] Begin forming nationalist volunteers into scout brigades.
-[] [AUSTRIA] Initiate an offensive toward Prague (Gold).
-[] [ITALY] Ask the Allies to put pressure on the League.
-[] [BALTIC] Order the Allied fleet to interdict the Scandinavian coast.
-[] [MED] Ask the Allies to maintain the situation in the Mediterranean.

Taking Krakow has put a crack between Austria and Russia, and pushing on to Lvov will further divide them. Taking Prague is more possible than Vienna and if it falls we have finally made a major gain against Austria, the only enemy we haven't done that against yet. It will also make their positions in much of Bohemia untenable. We should also look to peace Scandinavia out, invading Skane is a bad idea and we're unlikely to gain anything by keeping them in now. Putting pressure on the navally will help the peace process.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think Scandinavia will accept a Danish sister republic as part of a negotiated peace even if it's unlikely they'll take Denmark back, so I'm not sure on the negotiated peace.

Honestly we're probably better off at war with them because it means we can hit their trade with Russia and I don't think they can threaten us with our naval dominance.

As I said earlier, we should just declare a Danish sister republic and dare them to complain.
 
Last edited:
Nyvis said:
I don't think Scandinavia will accept a Danish sister republic as part of a negotiated peace even if it's unlikely they'll take Denmark back, so I'm not sure on the negotiated peace.

Honestly we're probably better off at war with them because it means we can hit their trade with Russia and I don't think they can threaten us with our naval dominance.

As I said earlier, we should just declare a Danish sister republic and dare them to complain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If we can't get them to let go of Denmark in a peace deal, then we can just walk away from negotiations. It's not binding us in to peace on their terms. And if we walk away it's no different than us just maintaining a defensive posture in Denmark.

As for just declaring a Danish sister republic, not an option in the vote, though I'd be in favor of it if it was.
 
Nyvis said:
I don't think Scandinavia will accept a Danish sister republic as part of a negotiated peace even if it's unlikely they'll take Denmark back, so I'm not sure on the negotiated peace.

Honestly we're probably better off at war with them because it means we can hit their trade with Russia and I don't think they can threaten us with our naval dominance.

As I said earlier, we should just declare a Danish sister republic and dare them to complain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think you're vastly overestimating Scandinavia's willingness or ability to play hardball. We can just set Republican Denmark as a precondition of negotiations and be done with it.
 
spiritualatheist said:
I think you're vastly overestimating Scandinavia's willingness or ability to play hardball. We can just set Republican Denmark as a precondition of negotiations and be done with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I get Nyvis's concern. If we peace out Scandinavia it could bypass our blockade of Russia by claiming neutrality and funnel them supplies. It also gives them time to shop around for new allies and potentially join the Entente when this is said and done.

Denying them a ceasefire means they have to stay in the fighting. That eats up money and manpower.
 
Fission Battery said:
I get Nyvis's concern. If we peace out Scandinavia it could bypass our blockade of Russia by claiming neutrality and funnel them supplies. It also gives them time to shop around for new allies and potentially join the Entente when this is said and done.

Denying them a ceasefire means they have to stay in the fighting. That eats up money and manpower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It also eats up our money and manpower supplying an occupation on an otherwise irrelevant front. The whole strategic point of the northern offensive was to close off that front.
 
Fission Battery said:
I get Nyvis's concern. If we peace out Scandinavia it could bypass our blockade of Russia by claiming neutrality and funnel them supplies. It also gives them time to shop around for new allies and potentially join the Entente when this is said and done.

Denying them a ceasefire means they have to stay in the fighting. That eats up money and manpower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nerdorama said:
It also eats up our money and manpower supplying an occupation on an otherwise irrelevant front. The whole strategic point of the northern offensive was to close off that front.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Where would they somehow Bypass a blockade if we control Denmark? There is very little they could do to actually prevent us from doing that. As for them joining the Entente, that's likely inevitable anyways. Unless you planned on us actually slogging through Sweden and Norway? Peacing out with them brings much needed men to the Polish and Austiran fronts, and it forces Scandinavia's navy out of the picture. Also, I'd like to ask, what money or soldiers is Russia wasting in Scandinavia? They haven't even shown up on that front, and they likely never will, unless you planned on us wasting our men on a landing in Sweden?
 
Last edited:
Fission Battery said:
I get Nyvis's concern. If we peace out Scandinavia it could bypass our blockade of Russia by claiming neutrality and funnel them supplies. It also gives them time to shop around for new allies and potentially join the Entente when this is said and done.

Denying them a ceasefire means they have to stay in the fighting. That eats up money and manpower.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can in fact make not trading with Russia for the duration of the war one of our demands. And they certainly won't be funneling anything to Russia while we negotiate because just about every plan involves interdicting their coast and devastating their shipping. It costs us literally nothing to negotiate unless you plan to invade Sweden this turn.
01paradox01 said:
Where would they somehow Bypass a blockade if we control Denmark? There is very little they could do to actually prevent us from doing that. As for them joining the Entente, that's likely inevitable anyways. Unless you planned on us actually slogging through Sweden and Norway? Peacing out with them brings much needed men to the Polish and Austiran fronts, and it forces Scandinavia's navy out of the picture. Also, I'd like to ask, what money or soldiers is Russia wasting in Scandinavia? They haven't even shown up on that front, and they likely never will, unless you planned on us wasting our men on a landing in Sweden?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh, even if we make peace we're still going to need to occupy Denmark, at the least for the duration of the war. So we won't be freeing any troops up, unfortunately.
 
spiritualatheist said:
We can in fact make not trading with Russia for the duration of the war one of our demands. And they certainly won't be funneling anything to Russia while we negotiate because just about every plan involves interdicting their coast and devastating their shipping. It costs us literally nothing to negotiate unless you plan to invade Sweden this turn.

Eh, even if we make peace we're still going to need to occupy Denmark, at the least for the duration of the war. So we won't be freeing any troops up, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The garrisons however would be MUCH lighter than a whole 600k man force. We'd be sending in the gendarmerie and perhaps some small outposts of the actual military, which would allows us to recall the army there. The Russians can't actually mount a naval invasion on Denmark since we control the western baltic.
 
01paradox01 said:
The garrisons however would be MUCH lighter than a whole 600k man force. We'd be sending in the gendarmerie and perhaps some small outposts of the actual military, which would allows us to recall the army there. The Russians can't actually mount a naval invasion on Denmark since we control the western baltic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I hope so but 400k is basically the smallest unit were tracking, so I doubt we'll be able to.
 
spiritualatheist said:
I hope so but 400k is basically the smallest unit were tracking, so I doubt we'll be able to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's something that'd probably be tracked offscreen, so to speak. It makes NO sense whatsoever to have a whole ass army group there just because 'Unit size too big'. Could I get your input here @Etranger ? Will we have to leave our northern army group there to garrison Denmark if we peace out with The Scandinavians? Or will the garrison/policing duty be left offscreen?
 
Last edited:
Etranger has clarified on Discord that we'll be keeping an army in Denmark for the duration of the war.

Turns out that unlike a video game where a peace treaty often literally can't be broken, people can break peace treaties if you give them a window to do so.
 
Godwinson said:
Etranger has clarified on Discord that we'll be keeping an army in Denmark for the duration of the war.

Turns out that unlike a video game where a peace treaty often literally can't be broken, people can break peace treaties if you give them a window to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Good to know. Still, making that peace deal seems prudent. It'll basically shunt out the Scandinavian navy from the war, which is very nice, and it's not like Russia or Austria were investing anything into Scandinavia's defence.
 
Last edited:
im all for negotiating peace with scandinavia while we still have momentum on our side. the narrative right now has been, we invaded them, then we smashed their navies and made a daring invasion with a horde of barbarians right behind us to throw into the meat gridnder. if we continue interdiction, we can negotiate from a position of extreme strength(in their eyes) while waiting will make them realize that even though we are strong, we are fighting 3 enemies who are getting wise to our tactics and figure that a peace thats not as lopsided is in order.

a peace could very well see us with a danish republic (or maybe only jutland after a plebiscite) and we can make it so scandi cant trade with russia for the duration of the war. we can even call for entente observers and regain some international prestige as the reasonable party in all this mess.

the thing thats really the decision in my mind is whether to go for broke in lvov or not. I feel the need to remind people that if we pull that off, we are effectively takeing 3 million russians offline. even better, 3 million soldiers are turned into 3 million angry, hungry men with guns in a country thats not their own.(Sack of Constantinople anyone?)
the alternative in my mind is to take warsaw and have the polish on side officially (which will also make things like liberating the Czechs easier once they see we keep our promises)

right now im leaning heavily to a warsaw offensive this turn and a full on rush for lvov next turn as we capitulate austria from all fronts.

finally, on the polish question, id rather they stay partisan or maybe (strong maybe) scouts. having them form up into professional formations is frankly wasteful. we would only see benefits to this a year or more off into the future (which looks to me to be unlikely for the war to continue so long without entente intervention or us getting bogged down in Belorussia). right now, they are much more useful making sure the russians cant fight us effectively and better yet, make it so that they cant retreat and are instead forced to fight or surrender.
 
You know, "marching on Vienna" has been the byword for deposing tyrannical monarchs since SoN 1, but…if we peace out with Scandinavia, take Koenigsberg, and move into the Eastern Baltic, is it possible that we could launch a naval invasion of Saint Petersburg?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top